This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

5 

Vol. 89, No. 1 

Tuesday, January 2, 2024 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 20 

[NRC–2023–0218] 

Regulatory Guide: Health Physics 

Surveys for Byproduct Material at 

NRC-Licensed Processing and 

Manufacturing Plants 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Regulatory guide: withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is withdrawing 

Regulatory Guide (RG) 8.21, ‘‘Health 

Physics Surveys for Byproduct Material 

at NRC-Licensed Processing and 

Manufacturing Plants.’’ This RG is being 

withdrawn because there is more up-todate guidance in NUREG–1556, 

‘‘Consolidated Guidance About 

Materials Licenses,’’ making RG 8.21 

obsolete. 

DATES: The effective date of the 

withdrawal of RG 8.21 is January 2, 

2024. 

ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID 

NRC–2023–0218 when contacting the 

NRC about the availability of 

information regarding this document. 

You may obtain publicly available 

information related to this document 

using any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2023–0218. Address 

questions about Docket IDs in 

Regulations.gov to Stacy Schumann; 

telephone: 301–415–0624; email: 

Stacy.Schumann@nrc.gov. For technical 

questions, contact the individuals listed 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this document. 

• NRC’s Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly 

available documents online in the 

ADAMS Public Documents collection at 

https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ 

adams.html. To begin the search, select 

‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.’’ For 

problems with ADAMS, please contact 

the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR) 

reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, at 

301–415–4737, or by email to 

PDR.Resource@nrc.gov. 

• NRC’s PDR: The PDR, where you 

may examine and order copies of 

publicly available documents, is open 

by appointment. To make an 

appointment to visit the PDR, please 

send an email to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov 

or call 1–800–397–4209 or 301–415– 

4737, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. eastern 

time (ET), Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don 

Lowman, telephone: (301) 415–5452; 

email: Don.Lowman@nrc.gov, or Harriet 

Karagiannis, Office of Nuclear 

Regulatory Research, telephone: 301– 

415–2493; email: Harriet.Karagiannis@

nrc.gov. Both are staff of the Office of 

Nuclear Regulatory Research at the U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NRC 

is withdrawing RG 8.21, ‘‘Health 

Physics Surveys for Byproduct Material 

at NRC-Licensed Processing and 

Manufacturing Plants.’’ The NRC staff 

issued RG 8.21 in 1979 to describe the 

methods and procedures considered 

acceptable by the NRC staff to comply 

with the survey requirements found in 

part 20 of title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR), ‘‘Standards for 

Protection Against Radiation.’’ Although 

10 CFR part 20 was revised in 1991 

(May 21, 1991; 56 FR 23390), RG 8.21 

was not updated. 

Since the staff had consolidated and 

followed the latest guidance pertinent to 

materials licensees found in NUREG– 

1556, ‘‘Consolidated Guidance About 

Materials Licenses,’’ RG 8.21 became 

outdated. Specifically, guidance for the 

advanced survey/measurement 

techniques and other more recent 

survey procedures are currently 

included in NUREG–1556, Volume 12, 

Revision 1 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML18136A704). Issues identified during 

the periodic reviews of RG 8.21 in 2012 

and 2023 include: 1) the citations to the 

regulations described in RG 8.21 were 

not consistent with those listed in the 

1991 revision of 10 CFR 20, 2) several 

of the references were outdated (e.g., 

some references were dated from the 

1950’s and no longer available to the 

public), and 3) the latest advances since 

1979 in survey/measurement techniques 

and equipment that have been effective 

were not included in RG 8.21. For these 

reasons and because NUREG–1556 

provides current health physics survey 

guidance to NRC byproduct material 

licensees, the NRC determined that RG 

8.21 is no longer needed and is being 

withdrawn. 

Withdrawal of an RG means that the 

guide no longer provides useful 

information or has been superseded by 

other guidance, technological 

innovations, congressional actions, or 

other events. The withdrawal of RG 8.21 

does not alter any prior or existing NRC 

licensing approval or the acceptability 

of licensee commitments to RG 8.21. 

Although RG 8.21 is withdrawn, current 

licensees may continue to use it, and 

withdrawal does not affect any existing 

licenses or agreements. However, RG 

8.21 should not be used in future 

requests or applications for NRC 

licensing actions. 

Dated: December 26, 2023. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Stephen M. Wyman, 

Acting Chief, Regulatory Guide and Programs 

Management Branch, Division of Engineering, 

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. 

[FR Doc. 2023–28797 Filed 12–29–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

11 CFR Part 113 

[Notice 2023–19] 

Candidate Salaries 

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is revising 

its regulations concerning the use of 

campaign funds by a candidate’s 

principal campaign committee to pay 

compensation to the candidate. The 

Commission is issuing these rules in 

response to a Petition for Rulemaking 

filed by a former candidate for the 

United States House of Representatives. 

DATES: The effective date is March 1, 

2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amy L. Rothstein, Assistant General 

Counsel for Policy, Joseph P. 

Wenzinger, Attorney, or Cheryl A. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
6 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

1 52 U.S.C. 30101–45. 

2 Id. 30111(d). 

3 Id. 30114(b). 

4 Id. 30114(b)(2); see also 11 CFR 113.1(g) 

(defining ‘‘personal use’’). 

5See 52 U.S.C. 30114(b)(2); 11 CFR 113.1(g)(1)(i). 

6See 11 CFR 113.1(g)(1)(ii) (providing nonexhaustive list of expenses to be determined for 

personal use on a case-by-case basis). 

7Advisory Opinion 1999–01 (Greene) at 4. 

8 Disclaimers, Fraudulent Solicitation, Civil 

Penalties, and Personal Use of Campaign Funds 

(‘‘2002 Proposed Rule’’), 67 FR 55348 (Aug. 29, 

2002), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR2002-08-29/pdf/02-21893.pdf. 

9 Id. at 55353. 

10 Disclaimers, Fraudulent Solicitation, Civil 

Penalties, and Personal Use of Campaign Funds 

(‘‘2002 Final Rule’’), 67 FR 76962, 76971 (Dec. 13, 

2002), https://sers.fec.gov/fosers/ 

showpdf.htm?docid=8982#page=10. 

11 Id. 

12 Id. 

13 Id. 

14 11 CFR 113.1(g)(1)(i)(I). 

15 Id. 

16 Id. 

17 Id. Under this regulation, if the candidate wins 

the primary election, his or her principal campaign 

committee may pay him or her a salary from 

campaign funds through the date of the general 

election, up to and including the date of any general 

election runoff. If the candidate loses the primary, 

withdraws from the race, or otherwise ceases to be 

a candidate, no salary payments may be paid 

beyond the date he or she is no longer a candidate. 

In odd-numbered years in which a special election 

for a federal office occurs, the principal campaign 

committee for that office may pay the candidate a 

salary from campaign funds starting on the date the 

special election is set and ending on the day of the 

special election. 

18 Id. 

Hemsley, Attorney, 1050 First Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20463, (202) 694–1650 

or (800) 424–9530. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission is revising its regulations at 

11 CFR part 113 concerning the use of 

campaign funds by a candidate’s 

principal campaign committee to pay 

compensation to the candidate. 

Specifically, the Commission is revising 

the criteria for determining whether a 

candidate is eligible to receive 

compensation from campaign funds, the 

maximum amount of compensation that 

a candidate may receive from campaign 

funds, and the period during which a 

candidate may receive compensation 

from campaign funds. The Commission 

is also making miscellaneous changes to 

its regulations on candidate 

compensation for purposes of 

continuity, clarity, and administration. 

The Commission is not, at this time, 

addressing the use of campaign funds to 

pay a candidate’s health insurance 

premiums and dependent care costs. 

The Commission’s advisory opinions 

addressing the use of campaign funds to 

pay a candidate’s dependent care costs 

remain in effect. Members of the public 

may also submit requests for additional 

advisory opinions on those subjects. 

Transmitting Final Rules to Congress 

Before promulgating rules or 

regulations to carry out the provisions of 

the Federal Election Campaign Act of 

1971, as amended (the ‘‘Act’’),1 the 

Commission transmits the rules or 

regulations to the Speaker of the House 

of Representatives and the President of 

the Senate for a thirty-legislative-day 

review period.2 The effective date of 

this final rule is March 1, 2024. 

I. Background 

The Act prohibits a candidate’s 

authorized committee from converting 

campaign funds to ‘‘personal use.’’ 3

‘‘Personal use’’ is defined as the use of 

campaign funds ‘‘to fulfill any 

commitment, obligation, or expense of a 

person that would exist irrespective of 

the candidate’s election campaign or 

individual’s duties as a holder of 

Federal office.’’ 4 The Act and 

Commission regulations provide a nonexhaustive list of expenses that, when 

paid using campaign funds, constitute 

per se conversion of those funds to 

personal use.5 The Commission 

determines on a case-by-case basis 

whether the use of campaign funds to 

pay expenses other than those listed 

would be a prohibited conversion of the 

funds to personal use.6

A. Candidates’ Salaries 

The Act does not identify the use of 

campaign funds to pay candidate 

salaries as per se personal use. In 

Advisory Opinion 1999–01 (Greene), 

however, the Commission concluded 

that the Act would prohibit a federal 

candidate from using campaign funds to 

pay himself a salary because the 

candidate would indirectly use the 

funds to pay his mortgage, utilities, 

groceries, and clothing—all of which are 

per se personal use.7

In 2002, the Commission proposed to 

codify this conclusion in a regulation.8

The proposed regulation would have 

prohibited candidates ‘‘from using 

campaign funds to pay themselves 

salaries or otherwise compensate 

themselves in any way for income lost 

as a result of campaigning for Federal 

office.’’ 9 The Commission received 

several public comments opposing this 

proposal, and no public comments 

supporting it. Comments argued that the 

use of campaign funds to pay 

candidates’ salaries would not fulfill a 

commitment, obligation, or expense that 

would exist irrespective of the 

campaign, and therefore satisfies the 

Act’s ‘‘irrespective’’ test because, ‘‘were 

it not for their campaign 

responsibilities, candidates would not 

have to leave their jobs and give up their 

salaries.’’ 10

The Commission ‘‘agree[d] with the 

commenters that the payment of a salary 

to a candidate is not a prohibited 

personal use as defined under 

Commission regulations.’’ 11 The 

Commission explained that this use of 

campaign funds satisfied the 

‘‘irrespective’’ test because, ‘‘but for the 

candidacy, the candidate would be paid 

a salary in exchange for services 

rendered to an employer.’’ 12 Moreover, 

the Commission stated, a ‘‘salary paid to 

a candidate would be in return for the 

candidate’s services provided to the 

campaign and the necessity of that 

salary would not exist irrespective of 

the candidacy.’’ 13

The Commission included in the final 

regulation various safeguards against 

abuse. To be a permissible use of 

campaign funds, the salary paid to a 

candidate must not exceed the lesser of 

the minimum salary paid to a ‘‘Federal 

officeholder holding the Federal office 

that the candidate seeks’’ or the earned 

income received by the candidate the 

year before becoming a candidate.14

Further, any earned income that a 

candidate receives from salary or wages 

from any source other than campaign 

funds counts against the minimum 

salary paid to a federal officeholder as 

described in the regulation.15 In 

addition, candidates must provide 

income tax records for the relevant years 

and other evidence of earned income 

upon the Commission’s request.16 The 

regulation also provides that campaign 

funds cannot be used to pay a 

candidate’s salary before the filing 

deadline for access to the primary 

election ballot for the federal office that 

the candidate seeks, as determined by 

state law, or January 1 of each evennumbered year in states that do not 

conduct primaries.17 Finally, the 

regulation requires salary payments to 

be computed on a pro-rata basis and 

prohibits candidates who are also 

federal officeholders from receiving 

salary payments from campaign funds.18

B. Candidates’ Childcare Expenses 

The Act and Commission regulations 

do not include the use of campaign 

funds to pay candidates’ childcare 

expenses as a per se personal use. The 

Commission has addressed this use of 

campaign funds in several advisory 

opinions, and has approved the use of 

campaign funds to pay candidates’ 

overnight childcare expenses incurred 

when the candidates travel for their own 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 7 

19Advisory Opinion 2022–07 (Swalwell); 

Advisory Opinion 1995–42 (McCrery). 

20Advisory Opinion 2018–06 (Liuba for 

Congress); Advisory Opinion 2019–13 (MJ for 

Texas). 

21Advisory Opinion 2022–07 (Swalwell) at 3–4; 

Advisory Opinion 2019–13 (MJ for Texas) at 3; 

Advisory Opinion 2018–07 (Liuba for Congress) at 

3; Advisory Opinion 1995–42 (McCrery) at 2; c.f. 

Advisory Opinion 2005–09 (Dodd) at 3 (approving 

proposed use of campaign funds to pay travel 

expenses for candidate’s children to accompany 

their parents ‘‘provided that the parents are 

traveling to participate in a function directly 

connected to the Senator’s bona fide official 

responsibilities’’); Advisory Opinion 1995–20 

(Roemer) at 2 (approving proposed use of campaign 

funds to pay travel expenses of candidate’s young 

children when they travel with candidate and his 

wife for campaign events, where such travel is 

‘‘only required because of the campaign’’). 

22The petitioner had previously requested an 

advisory opinion to clarify whether a candidate’s 

health insurance premiums were a permissible 

campaign expense, see Advisory Opinion Request 

2020–01 (Nabilah for Georgia), but her request 

became moot when she stopped being a candidate. 

23Petition for Rulemaking to Improve Candidate 

Salary Rules (‘‘Petition’’) (Mar. 23, 2021), https://

sers.fec.//showpdf.htm?docid=413694. 

24 Id. at 4–5. 25 Id. at 3–4. 26 Id. at 4 (noting, for example, that in 

Pennsylvania in 2018, Congressional candidates 

were eligible to receive a salary for only 56 days). 27 Id. at 4–5. 28 Id. at 5. 29 Id. at 4, 6. 30 Id. at 4–5. 31 Id. at 5. 32Rulemaking Petition: Candidate Salaries, 

Notification of Availability (‘‘NOA’’), 86 FR 23300 

(May 3, 2021), https://sers.fec.gov/fosers/ 

showpdf.htm?docid=413869. 33The comments are available on the 

Commission’s website at https://sers.fec.gov/fosers/ 

, referencing REG 2021–01 (Candidate Salaries). 

34Candidate Salaries, Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (‘‘NPRM’’), 87 FR 75945 (Dec. 12, 

2022), https://sers.fec.gov/fosers/ 

showpdf.htm?docid=421006. 

35The Commission proposed to remove and 

reserve 11 CFR 113.1(g)(1)(i)(I) and redesignate 

current paragraphs (g)(6), (g)(7), and (g)(8) as (g)(7), 

(g)(8), and (g)(9), respectively. 

36See 11 CFR 113.1(g)(1)(i)(I). 

campaigns,19 and to pay caregiver 

expenses and full-time daycare when 

candidates’ campaign responsibilities 

and activities prevented them from 

caring for their children themselves.20

In each of these advisory opinions, the 

Commission concluded that the 

candidate could use campaign funds to 

pay the candidate’s childcare expenses 

to the extent that the expenses were a 

‘‘direct result of campaign activity,’’ 

because such expenses would not have 

existed irrespective of the candidate’s 

campaign.21

C. Candidates’ Medical Insurance 

Premiums 

The Act and Commission regulations 

do not include the use of campaign 

funds to pay candidates’ medical 

insurance premiums as a per se personal 

use, and the Commission has not 

addressed this issue in advisory 

opinions.22 The Commission has, 

however, addressed the use of campaign 

funds to pay health insurance premiums 

in an enforcement matter. In MUR 7068 

(Mowrer for Iowa), the Commission 

found reason to believe that a 

congressional candidate and his 

campaign committee had improperly 

converted campaign funds to personal 

use by using funds from the candidate’s 

principal campaign committee to 

reimburse the candidate for payment of 

his health insurance premiums. 

D. Petition for Rulemaking 

On March 23, 2021, the Commission 

received a Petition for Rulemaking from 

Ms. Nabilah Islam, a former candidate 

for the United States House of 

Representatives in Georgia.23 The 

Petition asked the Commission to 

amend Section 113.1(g) of its 

regulations to expand the category of 

candidates eligible to receive 

compensation from their authorized 

committees and the duration of their 

eligibility, and to authorize the use of 

campaign funds to pay candidates’ 

health insurance premiums.24

The Petition asserted that ballot 

access deadlines for state primaries, 

which ‘‘vary wildly based on state 

law,’’ 25 leave many candidates with 

short periods for receiving a salary 

under the Commission’s regulation.26

Moreover, the Petition alleged that the 

current maximum salary limitation 

‘‘leaves candidates who are full time 

caretakers or who have had gaps in 

employment out in the cold,’’ 27 and that 

rising health insurance costs act as a 

barrier to the prospective candidacies of 

‘‘working class people.’’ 28

The Petition asked the Commission to 

‘‘lower the barriers for working 

Americans to run for Federal office’’ by 

amending its personal use regulations at 

11 CFR 113.1(g) to: 

(1) Extend the date on which a 

candidate may begin drawing a 

campaign salary to at least 180 days 

before the primary election; 29

(2) Establish a minimum candidate 

salary of no less than the annualized 

salary of $15 per hour; 30 and 

(3) Expressly permit a candidate to 

use campaign funds to pay the costs of 

any health benefit plan already 

provided to other campaign employees 

beginning on the date the candidate is 

eligible to receive a campaign salary.31

E. Public Comments on the Petition 

On May 23, 2021, the Commission 

published a Notification of Availability 

(‘‘NOA’’) seeking public comment on 

the Petition.32 The Commission 

received 22 comments in response, 14 of 

which supported initiating a 

rulemaking, agreeing generally that the 

Petition’s proposals would make it 

easier for individuals of modest means 

who are not already federal 

officeholders to run for federal office.33

Several comments noted that the current 

candidate salary regulation offers little 

assistance to full-time caregivers or 

those who have experienced a recent 

financial hardship because candidate 

salaries cannot currently exceed the 

amount of income earned in the year 

before their candidacy. Comments also 

indicated that the period during which 

a candidate is eligible to receive a salary 

is too short and does not reflect the 

financial costs and other demands of 

campaigning today. These comments 

generally agreed that a candidate’s 

campaign committee should be able to 

use campaign funds to pay the 

candidate’s health insurance premiums. 

Five comments opposed initiating a 

rulemaking. 

F. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

On December 12, 2022, the 

Commission published a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (‘‘NPRM’’) in the 

Federal Register, proposing to amend 

its regulations regarding the use of 

campaign funds to pay candidates’ 

compensation, including salaries, health 

insurance premiums, and dependent 

care costs.34

In the NPRM, the Commission 

proposed several changes to its personal 

use regulations, including a 

reorganization of the Commission’s 

current regulations at 11 CFR 113.1(g)(1) 

through (8) addressing personal use, and 

the candidate salary regulation at 11 

CFR 113.1(g)(1)(i)(I). The Commission 

proposed to remove, reserve, and 

redesignate several paragraphs 35 and 

add new paragraph (g)(6) to address 

candidate compensation. 

The Commission proposed the new 

paragraph 11 CFR 113.1(g)(6) to have 

seven subparagraphs as follows, each of 

which is explained further below: 

• New 11 CFR 113.1(g)(6)(i), to 

prohibit federal officeholders from 

receiving compensation as candidates 

from campaign funds. This prohibition 

already appears in the Commission’s 

regulation.36 The Commission is 

adopting this proposal. 

• New 11 CFR 113.1(g)(6)(ii), to limit 

the amount of compensation that a 

candidate could receive from campaign 

funds. The Commission proposed six 

alternative compensation caps, each of 

which would have enabled principal 

campaign committees to compensate 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
8 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

37See id. 

38See id. 39See id. 

40For purposes of this document, ‘‘comment’’ 

applies to both written comments and supplemental 

information and oral testimony at the public 

hearing. 

41 2002 Final Rule, 67 FR at 76972. 

42 Id. 

candidates even if they had not earned 

income the year prior to becoming a 

candidate. The Commission is adopting 

a modified version of these proposals. 

• New 11 CFR 113.1(g)(6)(iii), to 

define ‘‘compensation’’ for purposes of 

the regulation. This definition does not 

currently appear in Commission 

regulations. The Commission proposed 

three alternative definitions, each of 

which would have defined 

compensation to include direct 

payments to the candidate and 

payments for at least some other 

employee-related benefits, such as 

health insurance premiums or 

dependent care costs. The Commission 

is adopting a modified version of these 

proposals. 

• New 11 CFR 113.1(g)(6)(iv), to 

require a candidate’s committee to 

reduce the maximum amount of 

compensation that the candidate could 

receive from campaign funds by the 

amount of any earned income the 

candidate received while also receiving 

compensation from campaign funds. 

This provision would have revised a 

requirement already in the 

Commission’s regulation.37 The 

Commission is adopting a modified 

version of this proposal. 

• New 11 CFR 113.1(g)(6)(v), to 

establish the period during which a 

candidate would be eligible to receive 

compensation from campaign funds. 

This provision would have increased 

the length of the eligibility period 

already in Commission regulations.38

The Commission is adopting a modified 

version of this proposal. 

• New 11 CFR 113.1(g)(6)(vi), to 

prohibit a candidate’s principal 

campaign committee that seeks to settle 

debts for less than their full value from 

paying compensation to the candidate 

or satisfying a debt to the candidate for 

compensation, and to prohibit any debt 

settlement plan created under 11 CFR 

116.7 from providing for the payment of 

compensation to the candidate before all 

other creditors are paid. These 

prohibitions do not currently appear in 

the Commission’s regulations. The 

Commission is adopting a modified 

version of this proposal. 

• New 11 CFR 113.1(g)(6)(vii), to 

require a candidate who receives 

compensation from campaign funds to 

provide evidence of prior earned 

income upon the request of the 

Commission in certain circumstances, 

and to require a candidate to maintain 

and preserve such evidence for three 

years, pursuant to the Commission’s 

regulations on the preservation of 

records. This provision would have 

revised a requirement currently 

appearing in the Commission’s 

regulation.39 The Commission is 

adopting this proposal. 

G. Public Comments on the NPRM 

The Commission received 62 written 

comments in response to the NPRM. 

Ten comments were submitted by or on 

behalf of 15 organizations, 3 were 

submitted by former candidates for 

federal office, and 49 were from other 

individuals. 

As explained further below, these 

comments unanimously supported some 

version of the Commission’s proposals 

to permit principal campaign 

committees to compensate candidates 

who did not receive income in the year 

prior to becoming a candidate, although 

the comments varied widely in the 

alternatives they supported. These 

comments echoed the Petition and 

comments on the Petition in pointing 

out that the current regulation does not 

allow full-time caregivers, or those who 

have had a recent gap in employment, 

to receive compensation from campaign 

funds. The comments also supported 

allowing candidates to obtain 

compensation from campaign funds at 

the start of their campaigns. These 

comments cited, as did the Petitioner 

and comments on the Petition, the wide 

disparity among state ballot access 

deadlines and the demands that modern 

campaigns place on candidates as early 

as the start of their campaigns. The 

comments also supported allowing 

winning candidates to accept 

compensation from campaign funds 

until they are sworn into office; some 

comments additionally urged the 

Commission to extend the eligibility 

period for losing candidates by allowing 

them to continue accepting campaign 

funds for a short period after the end of 

their candidacies to wind down their 

campaign committees. The comments 

also generally agreed that a candidate’s 

campaign committee should be able to 

use campaign funds to pay the 

candidate’s health insurance premiums 

or dependent care costs. 

H. Public Hearing 

On March 22, 2023, the Commission 

held a public hearing on Candidate 

Salaries. The Commission heard 

testimony from 11 witnesses, all but one 

of whom supported making changes to 

the Commission’s regulations on 

candidate compensation. The witnesses 

included one Member of Congress, five 

former congressional candidates, a legal 

academic, and representatives from four 

organizations: a national labor 

organization, a national party 

committee, and two public interest 

organizations that advocate for 

campaign finance reform. After the 

hearing, four witnesses submitted 

additional information to the 

Commission. 

As explained further below, the 

Member of Congress and former 

congressional candidates testified to the 

hardships they faced in running for 

federal office, due to the limited time 

period that candidates are eligible to 

receive compensation from campaign 

funds under the current regulation. 

These witnesses also expressed support 

for many of the Commission’s 

proposals. The legal academic and most 

of the witnesses representing 

organizations generally argued that the 

cap on candidate compensation should 

be untethered from previous earnings, 

that the date of eligibility should be 

moved to the start of candidacy, and 

that candidates should be able to receive 

benefits from campaign funds. 

One witness argued that the payment 

of any candidate compensation violates 

the Act’s ‘‘irrespective’’ test because it 

allows candidates to pay indirectly for 

personal living expenses. The witness 

suggested that the Commission should 

either repeal the current regulation or 

not increase the ability of candidates to 

receive compensation under it. 

II. Revised 11 CFR Part 113.1— 

Definitions 

Considering the issues raised in the 

Petition, public comments, and witness 

testimony,40 the Commission is 

amending its regulations regarding the 

use of campaign funds for compensation 

to candidates, as described below. The 

Commission has previously concluded 

that ‘‘the payment of a salary to the 

candidate is not a prohibited personal 

use as defined under the Commission 

regulations since, but for the candidacy, 

the candidate would be paid a salary in 

exchange for services rendered to an 

employer.’’ 41 Nothing has occurred to 

change the Commission’s conclusion in 

this regard. Instead, the Commission 

intends to revise its regulations to 

reflect more accurately the appropriate 

amount of campaign funds that may be 

used to ‘‘compensate candidates for lost 

income that is forgone due to becoming 

a candidate.’’ 42

As proposed in the NPRM, the 

Commission is also reorganizing its 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 9 

43Specifically, the Commission is removing and 

reserving 11 CFR 113.1(g)(1)(i)(I); redesignating 

current paragraphs (g)(6), (g)(7), and (g)(8) as (g)(7), 

(g)(8), and (g)(9), respectively; and adding new 

paragraph (g)(6) to address candidate compensation. 

44 11 CFR 113.1(g)(1)(i)(I). The term ‘‘federal 

officeholder’’ is defined at 11 CFR 113.1(c). 

45 2002 Final Rule, 67 FR at 76972. 

46 11 CFR 113.1(g)(1)(i)(I). 

47NPRM, 87 FR at 75948 (quoting 2002 Final 

Rule, 67 FR at 76972). 

current regulations at 11 CFR 113.1(g)(1) 

through (8) addressing personal use 43

and adding new paragraph (g)(6) to 

address candidate compensation. This 

reorganization is being made for 

purposes of clarity and to accommodate 

the regulatory revisions set out in this 

Notice. 

A. New 11 CFR 113.1(g)(6)(i)—Federal 

Officeholders 

The Commission’s current regulations 

prohibit a federal officeholder who is 

also a federal candidate from receiving 

a salary from campaign funds.44 The 

Commission explained that, in the 

absence of this prohibition, ‘‘an 

incumbent officeholder would be 

receiving two salaries, one from his or 

her campaign and one for his or her 

official duties.’’ 45

In the NPRM, the Commission 

proposed to maintain this prohibition at 

11 CFR 113.1(g)(6)(i) by providing that 

a federal officeholder may not receive 

compensation as a candidate from 

campaign funds. The Commission 

received no comments on this proposal. 

The Commission is maintaining this 

prohibition and moving it to new 11 

CFR 113.1(g)(6)(i). 

B. New 11 CFR 113.1(g)(6)(ii)— 

Candidate Compensation Cap 

Under the current regulation, salary 

payments from campaign funds to a 

candidate are limited to the lesser of the 

minimum salary for the federal office 

that the candidate seeks, or the earned 

income that the candidate received 

during the year prior to becoming a 

candidate.46 Accordingly, candidates 

may receive salary payments from 

campaign funds only if they earned 

income the year prior to becoming a 

candidate. 

In the NPRM, the Commission 

proposed six alternatives (Proposed 

Compensation Cap Alternatives A 

through F) for revising the cap on the 

amount of compensation a candidate 

may receive from campaign funds. The 

Commission proposed these alternatives 

because, as indicated in the Petition and 

comments on the Petition, the current 

regulation does not adequately address 

‘‘income that is forgone due to becoming 

a candidate,’’ 47 especially by 

individuals who had a gap in 

employment or an unusually low level 

of income the year before becoming a 

candidate. The Commission sought 

comment on whether it should adopt 

any of the proposals or a combination of 

aspects of the proposals. 

For each alternative, the Commission 

proposed to require principal campaign 

committees to calculate the 

compensation and cap at the daily rate, 

rounded to the nearest dollar. Under 

this approach, the compensation and 

cap would be allocated based on the 

number of days per year that the 

candidate spent campaigning. 

In addition to comments on specific 

alternatives as described below, the 

comments supporting the NPRM’s 

proposals agreed that the Commission 

should expand the pool of candidates 

eligible to receive compensation from 

campaign funds to include people who 

otherwise might be prevented from 

campaigning due to a lack of funds, 

such as students, caregivers, and those 

who lost jobs before becoming a 

candidate. Several comments also 

agreed that no candidate should be able 

to accept compensation from campaign 

funds exceeding the salary for the 

federal office sought by the candidate. 

Proposed Alternatives A, B, and C 

Proposed Compensation Cap 

Alternatives A, B, and C did not 

consider a candidate’s prior earned 

income in setting a cap on the amount 

of compensation the candidate could 

receive from campaign funds. 

Proposed Compensation Cap 

Alternative A (50% minimum 

officeholder salary approach) would 

have capped the amount of campaign 

funds that a candidate’s principal 

campaign committee could use to pay 

compensation to the candidate at 50% 

of the minimum salary for the federal 

office sought. This cap would have 

applied to all candidates for the same 

office, regardless of the amount of 

income they earned the year before 

becoming a candidate. Five comments 

generally supported the approach taken 

in Alternative A, but differed as to 

whether the cap should be set at 50% 

or 100% of the salary for the office 

sought by the candidate. 

Proposed Compensation Cap 

Alternative B (hourly minimum wage 

approach) would have capped a 

candidate’s compensation from 

campaign funds at the daily rate of the 

annualized hourly minimum wage. 

Annualized hourly minimum wage was 

defined as the amount an individual 

receiving the federal minimum wage 

would earn by working 40 hours a week 

for 52 weeks, except that an individual 

residing in a state with a higher 

minimum wage than the federal 

minimum wage could use the state 

minimum wage. Three comments 

opposed Alternative B, arguing that the 

annualized hourly minimum wage was 

too low to provide a living wage to 

candidates, not objectively justifiable, 

and neither compensated candidates for 

the services demanded by a modern 

campaign nor reasonably accounted for 

their opportunity costs incurred in 

running for office. No comments 

supported this alternative. 

Proposed Compensation Cap 

Alternative C ($15 per hour approach) 

would have capped candidate 

compensation based on the amount an 

individual receiving $15 per hour 

would earn by working 40 hours per 

week for 52 weeks—calculated at the 

daily rate—rather than the federal or 

state minimum wage. Three comments 

opposed Alternative C, arguing that this 

alternative was too low to provide a 

living wage to candidates, not 

objectively justifiable, and would 

neither compensate candidates for their 

services to a campaign nor reasonably 

account for their opportunity costs 

incurred in running for office. No 

comments supported this alternative. 

Proposed Alternatives D, E, and F 

Proposed Compensation Cap 

Alternatives D, E, and F, like the current 

regulation, would have considered the 

candidate’s previous earned income, but 

in different ways. 

Proposed Compensation Cap 

Alternative D (prior 12-month income 

approach) would have capped a 

candidate’s compensation from 

campaign funds at the candidate’s 

earned income in the 12-month period 

before becoming a candidate or the 

annualized hourly minimum wage, 

whichever was greater, but not to 

exceed the minimum annual salary for 

the office sought by the candidate. One 

comment supported Alternative D, 

because it would ensure that all 

candidates could receive at least the 

annualized minimum wage and enable 

candidates who had earned more during 

the relevant period to receive 

commensurately more compensation 

from campaign funds. 

Proposed Compensation Cap 

Alternative E (three-year income 

approach) would have enabled a 

candidate to receive compensation from 

campaign funds up to the average 

annual income that the candidate had 

earned during the most recent three 

calendar years in which the candidate 

earned income prior to becoming a 

candidate, capped by the salary for the 

office sought by the candidate. No 

comments supported this alternative. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
10 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

48See U.S. Const. amend. XXVII. 

49 In 2022, half of the annual salary for Members 

of the House of Representatives under 2 U.S.C. 

4501(1)(A) was $87,000, while the real median 

household income was $74,580. Income in the 

United States: 2022, United States Census Bureau, 

Sept. 12, 2023, https://www.census.gov/library/ 

publications/2023/demo/p60-279.html. 

50 2002 Final Rule, 67 FR at 76972. 

Proposed Compensation Cap 

Alternative F (three-year income with 

minimum wage approach) would have 

been the same as Alternative E, while 

also offering candidate committees the 

option of paying candidates up to the 

annualized minimum wage if the 

minimum wage was greater than the 

candidate’s prior average earned 

income. Two comments supported 

Alternative F with modifications and 

two comments opposed it. 

Final Rule 

After considering the comments, the 

Commission is adopting a variation of 

Proposed Compensation Cap Alternative 

E. Under new 11 CFR 113.1(g)(6)(ii), the 

use of campaign funds by a candidate’s 

principal campaign committee to pay 

compensation to the candidate is not 

personal use, provided that the 

compensation does not exceed the lesser 

of 50% of the minimum annual salary 

paid to a Member of the U.S. House of 

Representatives (regardless of the 

specific office sought), and the average 

annual income that the candidate 

earned during the most recent five 

calendar years in which the candidate 

earned income prior to becoming a 

candidate. The new regulation requires 

the average annual income and 50% of 

the minimum House Member salary to 

be calculated at the daily rate, rounded 

to the nearest dollar. 

Example 1: Candidate A earned an 

average annual income of $35,000 in the 

most recent five calendar years in which 

Candidate A earned income prior to 

becoming a candidate, which means the 

daily rate is $96 for purposes of the 

compensation cap ($35,000/365, 

rounded to the nearest dollar). The 

minimum annual House Member salary 

is $174,000, which means the daily rate 

is $238 (($174,000 × 50%)/365, rounded 

to the nearest dollar). Under these facts, 

Candidate A’s compensation is capped 

at $96 per day because the daily rate of 

the candidate’s 5-year average earned 

income is less than the daily rate of 50% 

of the minimum House Member salary. 

Example 2: Candidate B earned an 

average annual income of $100,000 in 

the most recent five calendar years in 

which Candidate B earned income prior 

to becoming a candidate, which means 

the daily rate is $274 ($100,000/365). 

The minimum annual House Member 

salary is $174,000, which means the 

daily rate is $238 (($174,000 × 50%)/ 

365), rounded to the nearest dollar). 

Under these facts, Candidate B’s 

compensation is capped at $238 per day 

because the daily rate of 50% of the 

minimum House Member salary is less 

than the daily rate of Candidate B’s 5- 

year average earned income. 

Example 3: Candidate C becomes a 

candidate in 2023. Candidate C earned 

income averaging $60,000 per year in 

2021, 2019, 2018, 2017, and 2016, but 

did not earn any income in 2022 or 

2020. Because Candidate C’s 5-year 

average earned income in the five most 

recent calendar years in which 

Candidate C earned income was 

$60,000, which is less than 50% of the 

minimum House Member salary of 

$174,000 in 2023, Candidate C would be 

entitled to receive $164 per day 

($60,000/365) in compensation from 

campaign funds in 2023. 

Like Proposed Compensation Cap 

Alternative E and the current regulation, 

the revised compensation cap allows a 

candidate’s principal campaign 

committee to use campaign funds to pay 

the candidate compensation up to the 

lesser of the candidate’s pre-candidacy 

earned income and a percentage of the 

minimum annual salary paid to a 

federal officeholder. The revised cap, 

however, allows the principal campaign 

committee to consider the candidate’s 

prior earned income over a period of 

five years, instead of three years as 

proposed in the NPRM and one year as 

in the current regulation. The 

Commission intends this longer lookback to provide a more realistic estimate 

of the income a candidate forgoes in 

running for office; averaging income 

earned over a longer period is intended 

to moderate any aberrations in the 

candidate’s prior annual earnings. 

The Commission’s revised regulation 

also differs from Proposed 

Compensation Cap Alternative E and 

the Commission’s current regulation in 

that it places an upper-level cap at 50% 

of the minimum annual salary paid to 

a Member of the U.S. House of 

Representatives, rather than 100% of the 

minimum annual salary paid to a 

federal officeholder holding the office 

that the candidate seeks. These changes 

are intended to better reflect substantial 

differences between running for federal 

office and holding federal office, 

especially in a higher-level position 

such as the presidency or a leadership 

position in Congress. Officeholders have 

significant duties under the 

Constitution, and their salaries are set 

by the political branches subject to 

Constitutional restraints.48

Officeholders must continue to execute 

the duties of their offices while 

campaigning and they accordingly 

receive their full salaries while 

campaigning. Candidates who do not 

hold office may also choose to continue 

their employment while running for 

office, but should they decide otherwise 

and prefer to campaign full-time, the 

Commission notes that half of the 

minimum congressional salary exceeds 

the current median household income 

in the United States.49 Limiting 

candidate compensation in this way 

helps protect against personal 

enrichment from one’s candidacy and is 

tailored to real financial need. 

Moreover, the record before the 

Commission does not establish the need 

for salaries exceeding this amount, with 

near-universal agreement in comments 

that changes to the Commission’s 

regulations were needed to allow 

individuals of modest means to run for 

office. 

The Commission is not adopting the 

other alternative cap proposals 

presented in the NPRM or comments. 

Although several comments presented 

policy arguments in favor of the other 

proposals (such as the desirability of 

providing a fair living wage, enhancing 

the diversity of candidates, and 

reducing bias that favors incumbents), 

these proposals would have enabled 

candidates to receive an amount of 

compensation from campaign funds that 

was divorced from the candidate’s prior 

earnings history, and therefore did not 

reflect the candidate’s demonstrated 

earning potential and income forgone by 

running for office. As the Commission 

has stated previously, the payment of 

campaign funds to a candidate is not 

personal use when it ‘‘compensate[s] 

candidates for lost income that is 

forgone due to becoming a 

candidate.’’ 50

In the Commission’s view, a 

candidate’s earned income history over 

the most recent five years that the 

candidate earned income, capped by 

50% of the minimum House Member 

salary, provides a better picture of the 

income forgone by a candidate running 

for office. 

C. New 11 CFR 113.1(g)(6)(iii)— 

Definition of ‘‘Compensation’’ 

As explained above, the Act does not 

specifically address compensation to 

candidates in its provisions on the 

personal use of campaign funds. While 

the Commission’s current regulations 

permit the use of campaign funds to pay 

a ‘‘salary’’ to a candidate in certain 

circumstances, the regulations do not 

define ‘‘salary’’ or explicitly address the 

use of campaign funds to pay such 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 11 

51For example, in Advisory Opinion 2022–07 

(Swalwell), the Commission concluded that an 

officeholder could use campaign funds to pay 

overnight childcare expenses that he incurred when 

traveling for his own campaign but did not approve 

a response to the question whether the officeholder 

could use campaign funds to pay childcare 

expenses incurred when he campaigned for others. 

In Advisory Opinion 2019–13 (MJ for Texas), the 

Commission concluded that a candidate who left 

her job to work full-time on her campaign could use 

campaign funds to pay for full-time daycare for her 

children, where she would spend the ‘‘vast 

majority’’ of her time away from her family on 

campaign activities and would reimburse the 

campaign for childcare costs incurred when not 

campaigning. In Advisory Opinion 2018–06 (Liuba 

for Congress), the Commission concluded that a 

candidate who had given up her in-home 

consulting work to campaign and hired a caregiver 

for her children could use campaign funds to pay 

childcare expenses when her campaign 

responsibilities prevented her from caring for the 

children herself. 

52See, e.g., Advisory Opinion 2022–07 

(Swalwell) at 4 (approving use of campaign funds 

to pay candidate’s childcare expenses to extent 

expenses are the ‘‘direct result of campaign 

activity’’); Advisory Opinion 2019–13 (MJ for 

Texas) at 3 (same); Advisory Opinion 2018–07 

(Liuba for Congress) at 3 (same); see also Advisory 

Opinion 1995–42 (McCrery) at 2 (approving use of 

campaign funds to pay childcare expenses when 

Congressman and spouse attend campaign events, 

where expenses result only from campaign activity 

and otherwise would not exist). 

53 11 CFR 113.1(g)(1)(i)(I). 

54 2002 Final Rule, 67 FR at 76972. 

55The final rule differs from the proposed rule in 

one additional respect. The proposed rule would 

have reduced the maximum amount of 

compensation that a candidate could receive from 

campaign funds if the candidate earned income 

Continued 

employment-related benefits as health 

insurance premiums or dependent care 

costs. Nor do the Commission’s current 

regulations define ‘‘compensation’’ in 

this context. 

In the NPRM, the Commission 

proposed three alternative definitions of 

‘‘compensation,’’ each of which 

included ‘‘direct payments to the 

candidate,’’ as well as payments for at 

least some other employment-related 

benefits. Several comments on the 

NPRM generally supported these 

proposals. One comment was concerned 

that the proposed definitions could be 

read to encompass payments to 

candidates for non-compensation 

purposes, such as campaign expense 

reimbursements and loan repayments. 

The Commission agrees with this 

concern. The term ‘‘compensation’’ is 

intended to include only payments to a 

candidate to make up for salary forgone 

by becoming a candidate and is not 

intended to make otherwise permissible 

payments, such as candidate expense 

reimbursements and candidate loan 

repayments, subject to the 

compensation cap. Accordingly, new 11 

CFR 113.1(g)(6)(iii) defines 

‘‘compensation’’ as ‘‘direct payments to 

the candidate unless the payments are 

otherwise permitted by law, such as 

candidate expense reimbursements and 

candidate loan repayments under 11 

CFR part 116.’’ 

The Commission is not addressing the 

payment of a candidate’s health 

insurance premiums and dependent 

care costs in these final rules. Although 

several comments supported including 

payments for these benefits in the 

definition of ‘‘compensation,’’ arguing 

that such benefits are inextricably 

linked to employment and requiring 

candidates to forgo those benefits while 

campaigning could prevent some 

individuals from running for federal 

office, the advisory opinion process is 

better suited to addressing this use of 

campaign funds. Determining whether 

an impermissible conversion of 

campaign funds to personal use would 

result from a campaign committee’s 

payment of a candidate’s health 

insurance premiums or dependent care 

costs is a fact-specific inquiry.51

Accordingly, the Commission has 

decided to continue its current practice 

of addressing this issue on a case-bycase basis through the advisory opinion 

process.52 The Commission’s advisory 

opinions addressing the use of 

campaign funds to pay a candidate’s or 

officeholder’s dependent care costs 

remain in effect. Any person whose 

factual circumstances differ materially 

from those described in these advisory 

opinions may request an advisory 

opinion. 

D. New 11 CFR 113.1(g)(6)(iv)—Outside 

Earned Income 

As noted above, the Commission’s 

current regulation caps the amount of 

campaign funds that a candidate may 

receive in salary from the candidate’s 

principal campaign committee at either 

(1) the amount of income earned by the 

candidate in the 12-month period 

immediately preceding candidacy, or (2) 

the minimum annual salary for the 

federal office that the candidate seeks, 

whichever amount is lower. For 

purposes of this calculation, the current 

regulation further requires the minimum 

salary of the office that the candidate 

seeks to be reduced by the amount of 

any earned income that the candidate 

receives from salaries or wages from any 

source other than the candidate’s 

principal campaign committee.53 The 

Commission has explained that it 

requires campaign committees to count 

any outside earned income received by 

a candidate against the officeholder 

salary limit to ‘‘prevent candidates from 

paying themselves a salary from 

campaign funds on top of other earned 

income that they receive from other 

sources, such as from private sector 

employment, to the extent that such 

combined payments exceed the 

minimum annual salary for the Federal 

office that the candidate is seeking.’’ 54

The current regulation does not, 

however, require a campaign committee 

to count outside income earned by a 

candidate against the limit set by the 

amount of pre-candidacy income earned 

by a candidate. 

In the NPRM, the Commission 

proposed new 11 CFR 113.1(g)(6)(iv) to 

rectify the apparent imbalance in the 

salary cap reduction by requiring the 

amount earned by a candidate from 

other sources to count against the 

maximum amount of compensation that 

a candidate can receive from campaign 

funds, rather than counting against only 

the minimum annual salary for the 

office sought by the candidate. Although 

these final rules incorporate a standard 

tied to the minimum House Member 

salary even if the candidate is not 

seeking that office, the NPRM’s proposal 

regarding the reduction for outside 

earned income remains otherwise 

unchanged. 

Three comments supported the 

proposed regulation. They indicated 

that it would enhance oversight of 

candidates receiving compensation from 

campaign funds and was particularly 

apt considering the Commission’s 

proposed expansion of candidates’ 

ability to accept compensation from 

campaign funds and the period during 

which they may do so. No comment 

opposed the proposal. 

The Commission agrees that earned 

income a candidate receives from noncampaign sources should count against 

the maximum amount of compensation 

that the candidate can receive from 

campaign funds. If a candidate earns 

income from outside sources while 

campaigning for federal office, that 

income has not been lost to 

campaigning, and the Commission 

discerns no reason for treating outside 

earned income differently based on 

whether the applicable compensation 

cap is set by the candidate’s precandidacy earned income or the 

minimum House Member salary. 

Therefore, the Commission is adopting 

the proposal at new 11 CFR 

113.1(g)(6)(iv) to require a candidate’s 

principal campaign committee to reduce 

the maximum amount of permissible 

candidate compensation from campaign 

funds by the amount of income earned 

by the candidate from other sources 

after the candidate files a Statement of 

Candidacy.55


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
12 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

from outside sources ‘‘while the candidate receives 

compensation from campaign funds.’’ In response 

to a comment, the final rule provides, instead, that 

the maximum amount of compensation a candidate 

can receive from campaign funds must be reduced 

if the candidate earns income from outside sources 

‘‘after the candidate files a Statement of Candidacy 

under 11 CFR 101.3(a).’’ This revision is intended 

to avoid the impression that the compensation cap 

will be affected only if the candidate earns income 

from outside sources simultaneously with the 

receipt of compensation from campaign funds. 

56 11 CFR 113.1(g)(1)(i)(I). 

57A candidate must file a Statement of Candidacy 

within 15 days after becoming a candidate, 11 CFR 

101(a), and a principal campaign committee must 

file a Statement of Organization within 10 days after 

the candidate’s Statement of Candidacy, 11 CFR 

102.1(a). 

58The final rules differ from the proposed rules 

in one additional respect. In the NPRM, the 

Commission proposed to provide that, in the case 

of a special election, a candidate’s principal 

campaign committee could pay the candidate 

compensation starting on the date the special 

election is set. The Commission received no 

comments on this proposal and as noted above, 

received ample comments supporting the notion 

that a candidate should be eligible to receive 

compensation upon filing a Statement of 

Candidacy. The Commission discerns no reason to 

differentiate special elections from other types of 

elections in this respect. Therefore, under these 

final rules, candidates, whether in special elections 

or regularly scheduled elections, may begin 

receiving compensation from campaign funds upon 

filing their Statement of Candidacy with the 

Commission. 

59 11 CFR 113.1(g)(1)(i)(I). 

60 Id. 

Example 1: Candidate A earned an 

annual average of $60,000 during the 

most recent five calendar years in which 

Candidate A earned income before 

becoming a candidate, and the 

minimum House Member salary is 

$174,000 per year. Because $60,000 is 

less than half of the minimum House 

Member salary ($87,000), Candidate A 

could receive up to $164/day ($60,000/ 

365). But, if Candidate A earns $30,000 

in income from outside sources after 

filing a Statement of Candidacy with the 

Commission, the maximum amount that 

Candidate A may receive as 

compensation from campaign funds 

must be reduced by $30,000, meaning 

that the total compensation paid to the 

candidate may not exceed $82/day 

(($60,000¥$30,000)/365). 

Example 2: Candidate B earned an 

annual average of $100,000 during the 

most recent five calendar years in which 

Candidate B earned income before 

becoming a candidate, and the 

minimum annual House Member salary 

is $174,000 per year. Because half of the 

Minimum Officeholder Salary ($87,000) 

is less than $100,000, Candidate B could 

receive up to $238/day. But, if 

Candidate B earns $30,000 in income 

from outside sources while also 

receiving compensation from campaign 

funds, the maximum amount that 

Candidate B may receive as 

compensation from campaign funds 

must be reduced by $30,000, meaning 

that the total compensation paid to the 

candidate may not exceed $156/day 

(($87,000¥$30,000)/365). 

E. New 11 CFR 113.1(g)(6)(v)—Eligibility 

Period 

The Commission’s current regulation 

prohibits the use of campaign funds to 

pay a candidate’s salary before the filing 

deadline for access to the primary 

election ballot for the federal office that 

the candidate seeks, as determined by 

state law, or January 1 of each evennumbered year in states that do not 

conduct primaries.56

In the NPRM, the Commission 

proposed to allow candidates to begin 

receiving compensation from campaign 

funds on the date the candidate’s 

principal campaign committee files a 

Statement of Organization with the 

Commission, regardless of when the 

candidate is required to file for ballot 

access under state law. This proposal 

was intended to reflect more accurately 

when a candidate may start to forgo 

salary because of the campaign, and to 

apply uniform criteria for when 

candidates’ principal campaign 

committees may start using campaign 

funds to compensate the candidate. 

The comments generally supported 

this proposal. Echoing the Petition, 

several comments argued that ballot 

access deadlines are an inaccurate 

means of determining when a candidate 

begins losing income due to 

campaigning, and the lack of uniformity 

in state ballot access deadlines militates 

against using those deadlines to trigger 

candidates’ eligibility to receive 

compensation from campaign funds. 

The comments largely agreed with the 

Commission’s proposal to allow 

candidates to begin drawing 

compensation from campaign funds on 

the date that their principal campaign 

committee files a Statement of 

Organization with the Commission, but 

two comments suggested that the 

eligibility period should begin when the 

candidate files the Statement of 

Candidacy. 

The Commission is adopting new 11 

CFR 113.1(g)(6)(v) to allow candidates 

to begin receiving compensation from 

campaign funds on the date they file 

their Statement of Candidacy, rather 

than on the date of the state’s filing 

deadline for ballot access as under the 

current regulation or when a principal 

campaign committee files a Statement of 

Organization with the Commission as 

proposed. The comments indicate that 

campaigns often start well before the 

state’s filing deadline for ballot access 

under state law. Moreover, under the 

Act and Commission regulations, each 

candidate must file a new Statement of 

Candidacy with the Commission for 

each election in which the candidate 

runs for office, but a principal campaign 

committee is not required to file a new 

Statement of Organization for each 

election. The Statement of Candidacy is 

the first document that a campaign must 

file with the Commission.57 Therefore, 

the Commission has determined that the 

filing of a Statement of Candidacy will 

serve as a more accurate standard than 

the state’s deadline for filing for ballot 

access or a Statement of Organization 

for determining when a campaign 

begins and when a candidate becomes 

eligible to receive compensation from 

campaign funds in each election. 

Moreover, the new regulation will help 

promote uniformity in determining the 

start of the eligibility period.58

The current regulation prohibits the 

use of campaign funds to pay a 

candidate’s salary after the date the 

candidate loses the primary election, 

withdraws from the race, or otherwise 

ceases to be a candidate or, if the 

candidate wins the primary, after the 

date of the general election or general 

election runoff.59 For special elections 

occurring in odd-numbered years, the 

eligibility period runs until the date of 

the special election. 

In the NPRM, the Commission 

proposed to extend the eligibility period 

for candidates who win the general 

election, general election runoff, special 

election, or special election runoff by 

allowing them to continue receiving 

compensation from campaign funds up 

to the date they are sworn into office, 

rather than on the date of the election 

as under the current regulation. For 

losing candidates and any other 

individual who ceases to be a candidate, 

such as by withdrawing from the race, 

the Commission proposed to continue 

the approach under the current 

regulation and prohibit compensation 

from being paid beyond the date of 

losing the election or otherwise ceasing 

to be a candidate.60

Many of the comments supported the 

Commission’s proposal to permit 

winning candidates to receive 

compensation from campaign funds up 

to the date they are sworn into office, 

rather than the date of the election, and 

two suggested lengthening the period 

for losing candidates as well. One 

comment argued that losing candidates 

should be permitted to receive 

compensation for a reasonable period, 

such as 60 days after the election, and 

another organization suggested 1 or 2 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 13 

61See id. 104.5(a)(2)(ii)(B). 

62 Id. 113.1(g)(1)(i)(I). 

63 Id. 102.9(b). Such records include bank 

records, vouchers, worksheets, receipts, bills, and 

accounts. Id. 104.14(b)(1). 

64 Id. 102.9(c). 

months, so that the candidates may 

wind down their campaigns. 

The Commission is adopting new 11 

CFR 113.1(g)(6)(B) to enable all 

candidates to accept compensation from 

campaign funds for 20 calendar days 

after winning or losing the election or 

otherwise ceasing to become a 

candidate. As the comments pointed 

out, all candidates must spend time 

after a campaign winding down their 

campaigns, and a 20-day period reflects 

the timelines of reportable activity for 

post-general election reports.61 The 

Commission is extending the same 

rationale to candidates who lose 

primary elections or otherwise drop out 

of the race to maintain consistency 

between candidates who do and do not 

advance to the general election. 

F. New 11 CFR 113.1(g)(6)(vi)—Debts 

and Debt Settlement 

To prevent candidates from enriching 

themselves at the expense of other 

campaign creditors, the Commission 

proposed in the NPRM to prohibit any 

principal campaign committee seeking 

to settle debts for less than full value 

from paying compensation to the 

candidate or satisfying a debt to the 

candidate for compensation. In 

addition, under the proposal, any debt 

settlement plan created under 11 CFR 

116.7 would be prohibited from 

providing for the payment of 

compensation to the candidate before all 

other creditors are paid. 

The Commission received two 

comments supporting this proposal, at 

least in part. One comment said the 

proposed revision is necessary for 

sufficient oversight of candidates 

receiving compensation from campaign 

funds. The other agreed that a principal 

campaign committee’s debt to a 

candidate for compensation should be 

subordinated to debts owed to the 

committee’s other creditors in any debt 

settlement plan, but suggested that 

committees seeking to settle debts for 

less than the full value should also be 

permitted to settle a debt for 

compensation with the candidate. 

The Commission does not agree with 

the latter comment’s suggestion. New 11 

CFR 113.1(g)(6)(vi) is intended to 

prevent a principal campaign committee 

from paying compensation to a 

candidate at the expense of the 

committee’s other creditors. When a 

principal campaign committee seeks to 

settle debts for less than the full amount 

owed, any campaign funds that the 

committee pays to the candidate for 

compensation are funds that could have 

been, but are not being, paid to help 

make other creditors whole. 

Accordingly, new 11 CFR 113.1(g)(6)(vi) 

prohibits a principal campaign 

committee from settling or satisfying a 

debt for compensation to the candidate, 

or otherwise paying compensation to 

the candidate, when seeking to settle 

debts to others for less than the full 

amount owed. 

G. New 11 CFR 113.1(g)(6)(vii)— 

Evidence of Earned Income 

The Commission’s current regulations 

require any candidate receiving a salary 

from campaign funds to provide income 

tax records and other evidence of earned 

income upon request of the 

Commission.62 In the NPRM, the 

Commission proposed in Proposed 

Compensation Cap Alternatives D, E, 

and F to maintain this requirement at 

new 11 CFR 113.1(g)(6)(vii). The 

Commission received one comment 

supporting the proposal as necessary for 

sufficient oversight of candidates 

receiving compensation from campaign 

funds. The Commission agrees. Because 

income earned by a candidate during 

certain time periods is a material 

consideration in determining the 

maximum compensation that the 

candidate may receive from campaign 

funds, new 11 CFR 113.1(g)(6)(vii) 

maintains the current requirement that 

candidates who receive compensation 

from campaign funds must provide 

income tax records or other evidence of 

earned income upon request of the 

Commission. 

The Commission is also adopting a 

proposal from the NPRM to require 

candidates to maintain and preserve 

evidence of earned income for three 

years after their principal campaign 

committees file reports disclosing the 

payment of compensation to the 

candidates, pursuant to 11 CFR 102.9 

and 104.14(b). The Commission 

received no comments on this proposal. 

Sections 102.9 and 104.14(b) already 

require political committees and their 

authorized agents to keep certain 

records of committee disbursements 63

and to maintain those records for three 

years after filing a report to which such 

records relate.64 New 11 CFR 

113.1(g)(6)(vii) clarifies that this record 

retention requirement applies to 

evidence of a candidate’s earned 

income, as well. 

Certification of No Effect Pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 605(b) (Regulatory Flexibility 

Act) 

The Commission certifies that the 

final rules do not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The final rules 

provide flexibility to principal 

campaign committees that choose to use 

campaign funds to pay their candidates 

compensation. Any final rule that could 

be construed as placing an obligation on 

a principal campaign committee would 

apply only to campaigns that choose to 

pay their candidates compensation. The 

final rules would not impose any new 

recordkeeping, reporting, or financial 

obligations on principal campaign 

committees that do not choose to pay 

their candidates compensation, and any 

such new obligations that are imposed 

on principal campaign committees that 

do choose to pay compensation to their 

candidates would be minimal. Thus, to 

the extent that any entities affected by 

these final rules might fall within the 

definition of ‘‘small businesses’’ or 

‘‘small organizations,’’ the economic 

impact of complying with these rules is 

not significant. 

List of Subjects in 11 CFR Part 113 

Campaign funds. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, the Federal Election 

Commission amends 11 CFR chapter 1 

as follows: 

PART 113—PERMITTED AND 

PROHIBITED USES OF CAMPAIGN 

ACCOUNTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 113 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 52 U.S.C. 30102(h), 30111(a)(8), 

30114, and 30116. 

§ 113.1 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 113.1: 

■ a. Remove and reserve paragraph 

(g)(1)(i)(I); 

■ b. Redesignate paragraphs (g)(6) 

through (g)(8) as paragraphs (g)(7) 

through (g)(9); 

■ c. Add new paragraph (g)(6). 

The addition reads as follows: 

(6) Candidate compensation. (i) A 

Federal officeholder, as defined in 

paragraph (c) of this section, must not 

receive compensation as a candidate 

from campaign funds. 

(ii) The use of campaign funds by a 

candidate’s principal campaign 

committee to pay compensation to the 

candidate is not personal use, provided 

that the compensation does not exceed 

the lesser of: 50% of the minimum 

annual salary paid to a Member of the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
14 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

United States House of Representatives 

under 2 U.S.C. 4501, and the average 

annual income that the candidate 

earned during the most recent five 

calendar years in which the candidate 

earned income prior to becoming a 

candidate. The committee must 

calculate compensation, minimum 

annual salary, and average annual 

income at the daily rate, rounded to the 

nearest dollar. 

(iii) For the purposes of this 

paragraph, compensation means direct 

payments to the candidate unless the 

payments are otherwise permitted by 

law, such as candidate expense 

reimbursements and candidate loan 

repayments under 11 CFR part 116. 

(iv) The candidate’s principal 

campaign committee must reduce the 

maximum amount of candidate 

compensation permissible under this 

paragraph (g)(6) by the amount of any 

earned income the candidate receives 

from any other source after filing a 

Statement of Candidacy under 11 CFR 

101.1(a). 

(v)(A) Compensation shall not accrue 

or be paid to a candidate before the date 

the candidate files a Statement of 

Candidacy with the Commission. See 11 

CFR 101.1(a). 

(B) A candidate’s principal campaign 

committee may pay the candidate 

compensation from campaign funds up 

to 20 days after the candidate wins the 

general election, general election runoff, 

special election, or special election 

runoff, or otherwise ceases to be a 

candidate, such as by losing an election 

or withdrawing from the race. 

(vi) Any principal campaign 

committee seeking to settle debts for 

less than the full value may not pay 

compensation to the candidate or settle 

or satisfy a debt to a candidate for 

compensation. 

(vii) The candidate must provide 

evidence of earned income from the 

relevant years upon the request of the 

Commission. Any such evidence of 

earned income must be maintained and 

preserved for three years after the report 

disclosing the disbursement is filed, 

pursuant to 11 CFR 102.9 and 104.14(b). 

Dated: December 14, 2023. 

On behalf of the Commission, 

Dara S. Lindenbaum, 

Chair, Federal Election Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2023–27906 Filed 12–29–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6715–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2023–1706; Project 

Identifier MCAI–2023–00039–T; Amendment 

39–22625; AD 2023–24–08] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, 

Inc., Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

Bombardier, Inc., Model BD–700–1A10 

and BD–700–1A11 airplanes. This AD 

was prompted by reports that the nose 

wheel steering selector valve (SSV) can 

be slow to deactivate under low 

temperature conditions. This AD 

requires replacing the affected SSV with 

a re-designed SSV that has an improved 

response time. The FAA is issuing this 

AD to address the unsafe condition on 

these products. 

DATES: This AD is effective February 6, 

2024. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of certain publications listed in this AD 

as of February 6, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: 

AD Docket: You may examine the AD 

docket at regulations.gov under Docket 

No. FAA–2023–1706; or in person at 

Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 

5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The AD docket 

contains this final rule, the mandatory 

continuing airworthiness information 

(MCAI), any comments received, and 

other information. The address for 

Docket Operations is U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

Material Incorporated by Reference: 

• For service information identified 

in this final rule, contact Bombardier 

Business Aircraft Customer Response 

Center, 400 Coˆte-Vertu Road West, 

Dorval, Que ́bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; 

telephone 514–855–2999; email ac.yul@

aero.bombardier.com; website 

bombardier.com. 

• You may view this service 

information at the FAA, Airworthiness 

Products Section, Operational Safety 

Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des 

Moines, WA. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, 

call 206–231–3195. It is also available at 

regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA– 

2023–1706. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gabriel Kim, Aviation Safety Engineer, 

FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, 

Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516– 

228–7300; email 9-avs-nyaco-cos@

faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The FAA issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 by adding an AD that would 

apply to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model 

BD–700–1A10 and BD–700–1A11 

airplanes. The NPRM published in the 

Federal Register on August 9, 2023 (88 

FR 53823). The NPRM was prompted by 

AD CF–2023–02, dated January 11, 

2023, issued by Transport Canada, 

which is the aviation authority for 

Canada (referred to after this as the 

MCAI). The MCAI states that following 

a runway excursion on a different 

model, an investigation revealed that 

the nose wheel SSV can be slow to 

deactivate under low temperature 

conditions. A similar SSV is installed 

on the airplanes to which this AD is 

applicable. In the event of an uncommanded steering input, a slow SSV 

deactivation could lead to a delayed 

transition to free caster mode and result 

in an aircraft runway excursion. 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to 

require replacing the affected SSV with 

a re-designed SSV that has an improved 

response time. The FAA is issuing this 

AD to address the unsafe condition on 

these products. 

You may examine the MCAI in the 

AD docket at regulations.gov under 

Docket No. FAA–2023–1706. 

Discussion of Final Airworthiness 

Directive 

Comments 

The FAA received a comment from 

NetJets. The following presents the 

comment received on the NPRM and the 

FAA’s response. 

Request To Add Bombardier Part 

Numbers 

NetJets suggested adding Bombardier 

part numbers GW415–6275–1 & 

GW415–6275–3 to paragraph (g) of the 

proposed AD, in addition to Safran part 

numbers, as stated in SB 700–32–6021, 

paragraph 3., MATERIAL 

INFORMATION. NetJets stated that, at 

new aircraft delivery, the Bombardier 

part numbers are provided in the 

documentation of the aircraft. The FAA 

infers that NetJets would like to ensure 

the proper identification of the parts. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES